Question about the right to bear arms

[Throckmorton]

Why does the right to bear arms stop at semi-automatic rifles? Gun rights advocates were outraged about the "assault weapon ban" on some semiauto rifles and pistols, and now are afraid it will be reinstated. But I don't recall ever hearing the NRA call for a repeal of the ban on fully automatic weapons, although I assume they believe that's unconstitutional too. I've also never heard them call for the lifting of bans on bombs, cannons, and grenades. Isn't that hypocritical? What is the justification for being OK with a bomb ban? After all, it only prevents law abiding citizens from having bombs- A criminal like Tim McVeigh is going to make bombs anyway.

Does the "right to bear arms" have an asterix next to it, or does an arm only constitute the type of arms that you're an enthusiast about?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Why does the right to bear arms stop at semi-automatic rifles? Gun rights advocates were outraged about the "assault weapon ban" on some semiauto rifles and pistols, and now are afraid it will be reinstated. But I don't recall ever hearing the NRA call for a repeal of the ban on fully automatic weapons, although I assume they believe that's unconstitutional too. I've also never heard them call for the lifting of bans on bombs, cannons, and grenades. Isn't that hypocritical? What is the justification for being OK with a bomb ban? After all, it only prevents law abiding citizens from having bombs- A criminal like Tim McVeigh is going to make bombs anyway.

Does the "right to bear arms" have an asterisk next to it, or does an arm only constitute the type of arms that you're an enthusiast about?

You can still legally own most of the weapons you listed. Doing so simply involves more regulation, red tape, and money. I'm sure you could legally get your hands on sharks that shoot laser beams if you had enough money lying around...

I believe the current situation simply boils down to practicality.

 

[fleshconsumed]

It's possible they are being practical. Some people already argue NRA goes too far by supporting semi-auto rifles. I don't think they'd get very far for advocating for full auto.

 

[Pacemaker]

Fully automatic weapons are really only useful in situations where you would be facing multiple enemy combatants that are similarly armed. Because of that there is little need for your average citizen to have one. Plus you are much more likely to accidentally shoot someone you didn't mean to when you fire 30 rounds in a few seconds rather than 1 or 2 well aimed shots.

 

[StageLeft]

The true proponents of it of course realize the silliness of allowing the average joe to mail order a six pack of grenades, so pragmatists know that there has to be a limit, they just don't know precisely what it is, and that limit is generally the source of argument. Most "gun nuts" don't think we should be able to put a 50 cal on our flatbed to drive around the city and look awesome just as most "gun hating liberals" don't think that only cops should have guns and not even deer hunters should be allowed one.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
Because of that there is little need for your average citizen to have one.

He does have a point, though, when you consider the "We own guns to protect us from a tyrannical government" argument. After all, if the government comes after you, they certainly have plenty of automatic weapons and big bombs...

That said, I still think it's important to remember that the best way to interpret the Constitution is through the practical application of common sense.

 

[Ozoned]

I want citizens armed well enough that it gives government serious cause to think of the cost of taking the arms away. That is the correct balance.

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The true proponents of it of course realize the silliness of allowing the average joe to mail order a six pack of grenades, so pragmatists know that there has to be a limit, they just don't know precisely what it is, and that limit is generally the source of argument. Most "gun nuts" don't think we should be able to put a 50 cal on our flatbed to drive around the city and look awesome just as most "gun hating liberals" don't think that only cops should have guns and not even deer hunters should be allowed one.

This.

I feel like it would be a good idea to revise gun regulation based on the owner's primary residence... Something based on the logic that one of the gun's uses is to "defend one's property" so the more property you have the more firepower you're allowed...

What I mean is, it should be easier for someone to legally own an assault rifle if they live on ~40 acres of land than it should be for me to own one in my 4 bedroom apartment... not just broad, state/nation wide laws... which are definitely still necessary to background check and all that.

but yeah, I digress, sometimes I feel like a redneck gun nut who got stuck growing up in an urban gun hating liberal family... haha.

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I want citizens armed well enough that it gives government serious cause to think of the cost of taking the arms away. That is the correct balance.

If I remember my AP US history class correctly, this was the reason for the "right to bear arms."

However, our "arms" have evolved quite a bit from what they were in the late 18th century, but yeah, how kickass would it be if there were civilian access to military level firepower...? I can just picture the RPG's flying around Dorchester instead of 9mm bullets.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
Because of that there is little need for your average citizen to have one.

He does have a point, though, when you consider the "We own guns to protect us from a tyrannical government" argument. After all, if the government comes after you, they certainly have plenty of automatic weapons and big bombs...

That said, I still think it's important to remember that the best way to interpret the Constitution is through the practical application of common sense.

That's how it's been done. We have freedom of speech, yet one can't yell "fire" whenever he wishes. There are no unlimited freedoms, however there are people who wish to change or limit existing freedoms because they don't like them. Tag something as "wrong" then use that argument against it.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I want citizens armed well enough that it gives government serious cause to think of the cost of taking the arms away. That is the correct balance.

If I remember my AP US history class correctly, this was the reason for the "right to bear arms."

However, our "arms" have evolved quite a bit from what they were in the late 18th century, but yeah, how kickass would it be if there were civilian access to military level firepower...? I can just picture the RPG's flying around Dorchester instead of 9mm bullets.

Heh. You can buy everything you need to contruct a rpg at walmart.

 

[mugs]

Automatic weapons aren't banned. There is a limited quantity of existing automatic weapons that are available to citizens, so they're retardedly expensive. $10k-20k for a gun is not out of the ordinary.

 

[Specop 007]

The traditional assumption in the 2nd has always been "small arms". THis precludes things such as explosives and mortars.

Full auto weapons of course do fall within the realm of small arms. Interestingly enough they arent banned nor have they ever been. Whats unique about full auto arms is that no new products are allowed onto the market. Only registered weapons of 1986 or prior manufacture are available. So its easy to argue that full auto weapons are not banned because, well, they arent.

Personally I think they should be unregulated in the same way semi auto weapons are. But even staunch 2nd supporters realize thats beyond an uphill battle and just a downright impossiblity to get achieved.

More to the point there were some good things to come from the FOPA. The full auto lockdown was something of a trade off to get the act pushed through. Most people remain fixated upon the full auto ban of 86 and think of it as bad legislation, without weighing the fact that a fair amount of good (for gun owners) was also included in the FOPA.

While not a win win situation, its just how politics work. Most reasonable people, regaardless of how they view full auto regulations, realize the impossibility of changing it.

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I want citizens armed well enough that it gives government serious cause to think of the cost of taking the arms away. That is the correct balance.

If I remember my AP US history class correctly, this was the reason for the "right to bear arms."

However, our "arms" have evolved quite a bit from what they were in the late 18th century, but yeah, how kickass would it be if there were civilian access to military level firepower...? I can just picture the RPG's flying around Dorchester instead of 9mm bullets.

Heh. You can buy everything you need to contruct a rpg at walmart.

This may be true, but few residents of my neighborhood have the technical knowledge to do so... or even know what the 2nd amendment is.

 

[GeezerMan]

I just saw another "out on bond" criminal in the news last night being arrested for another gun crime while waiting for trial for a previous gun crime. I see or read about them all the time. Perps with long rap sheets cycling through the system over and over again. Golly gee whiz, maybe we should focus on who is using the guns instead of the guns themselves?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I want citizens armed well enough that it gives government serious cause to think of the cost of taking the arms away. That is the correct balance.

If I remember my AP US history class correctly, this was the reason for the "right to bear arms."

However, our "arms" have evolved quite a bit from what they were in the late 18th century, but yeah, how kickass would it be if there were civilian access to military level firepower...? I can just picture the RPG's flying around Dorchester instead of 9mm bullets.

Heh. You can buy everything you need to contruct a rpg at walmart.

This may be true, but few residents of my neighborhood have the technical knowledge to do so... or even know what the 2nd amendment is.

You would be suprised. It wouldnt take long at all for them to figure it out. More worrisome (in my opinion) is that chemical weapons are actually easier to work up from Wal Mart then explosive! And yes, said chemical weapons could be attached to those rockets.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Actually here in FL anybody who can legally own a gun can also own a fully automatic gun once they fill out the appropriate paperwork and pay the one time tax for it which was $200 the last time I looked.

If you're wealthy and like lots of noise then firing on full auto can be quite fun. With ammo prices as high as they are now I'll stick to one at a time thanks. IMHO every law abiding citizen should own a gun.

 

[StageLeft]

IMHO every law abiding citizen should own a gun.

Even my 2 year old?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

IMHO every law abiding citizen should own a gun.

Even my 2 year old?

Why not?

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I want citizens armed well enough that it gives government serious cause to think of the cost of taking the arms away. That is the correct balance.

If I remember my AP US history class correctly, this was the reason for the "right to bear arms."

However, our "arms" have evolved quite a bit from what they were in the late 18th century, but yeah, how kickass would it be if there were civilian access to military level firepower...? I can just picture the RPG's flying around Dorchester instead of 9mm bullets.

Heh. You can buy everything you need to contruct a rpg at walmart.

This may be true, but few residents of my neighborhood have the technical knowledge to do so... or even know what the 2nd amendment is.

You would be suprised. It wouldnt take long at all for them to figure it out. More worrisome (in my opinion) is that chemical weapons are actually easier to work up from Wal Mart then explosive! And yes, said chemical weapons could be attached to those rockets.

Well I'm pretty sure rappers won't be talking about "killin niggas with homemade chemical weapons" anytime soon, and "bustin' caps" will continue to be the norm.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers


Well I'm pretty sure rappers won't be talking about "killin niggas with homemade chemical weapons" anytime soon, and "bustin' caps" will continue to be the norm.

And approximately 98% of the time "bustin caps" is done with pistols. From that perspective the regulation, deregulation as it were, of full auto weapons should be a non issue.......

 

[blackangst1]

I dont understand why people get all upset about owning auto weapons. Most people assume if you *want* to own one you must want it for protection or nefarious reasons. What about the fun of it? Whats wrong with that? Shooting fully auto rifles IS fun.

 

[Lemon law]

It is much easier to make a bomb than a gun. Especially anything fully or semi automatic. To function properly, we are talking machining high quality alloys to a very small tolerances. Very few people have the machine tools and the skills to even start making anything but a single shot non rifled zip gun. Even a revolver takes highly accurate equipment. And while many of the feed mechanisms can be made from stampings,
the die to stamp out the stamping also takes a high degree of skill to make.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I want citizens armed well enough that it gives government serious cause to think of the cost of taking the arms away. That is the correct balance.

If I remember my AP US history class correctly, this was the reason for the "right to bear arms."

However, our "arms" have evolved quite a bit from what they were in the late 18th century, but yeah, how kickass would it be if there were civilian access to military level firepower...? I can just picture the RPG's flying around Dorchester instead of 9mm bullets.

Heh. You can buy everything you need to contruct a rpg at walmart.

This may be true, but few residents of my neighborhood have the technical knowledge to do so... or even know what the 2nd amendment is.

You would be suprised. It wouldnt take long at all for them to figure it out. More worrisome (in my opinion) is that chemical weapons are actually easier to work up from Wal Mart then explosive! And yes, said chemical weapons could be attached to those rockets.

But no one does....thankfully.

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
IMHO every law abiding citizen should own a gun.

What if I don't want one?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It is much easier to make a bomb than a gun. Especially anything fully or semi automatic. To function properly, we are talking machining high quality alloys to a very small tolerances. Very few people have the machine tools and the skills to even start making anything but a single shot non rifled zip gun. Even a revolver takes highly accurate equipment. And while many of the feed mechanisms can be made from stampings,
the die to stamp out the stamping also takes a high degree of skill to make.

I once fired a full auto tommy-gun-replica built entirely from parts purchased at Hechinger's (old-school Home Depot)... it was refined and machined by a member of the Special Forces.

good times!